tentions elsewhere I will not take the time to summarize, but that local example is particularly vivid to me.

The logic of the Court's decision would make it unlikely that any vestige of the middle way would survive. The proponents and the Court itself sincerely believe it would be a neutrality toward religion. But godless institutions are no more neutral than godly ones. There is no neutrality possible here because if you leave out this dimension in our schools and public institutions, then you have an image of a world view which one could describe as men and things without God, time and history without eternity; and that is the very definition of secularism which in itself is a faith, a religion; that is, a world view taken on faith, an outlook on life with its own premises and presuppositions.

The result is secularism, whether by intent or by default. I am not implying for a moment that the proponents or supporters of the decision of the Supreme Court intentionally wish an atheistic result. Nevertheless, when it is by default we simply cut off the whole spiritual dimension of life, and without even a reference to it. What we have left is actually a secularist view of life.

Secularism is a faith any American is entitled to hold. But there is no reason why, in our public institutions, it should be imposed upon all of us, anymore than the school prayer should have been imposed upon the pupils whose parents wished them to withstand.

I have already mentioned that in dealing with the Jehovah's Witnesses situation the Supreme Court exempted the dissenters but did not bar the flag salutes in the schools and I ask them why in this case where the New York regulation already clearly exempted objectors did the Court throw out the prayer for everybody. Our Constitution is meant to protect minorities, but it is not meant to impose on the majority the outlook of any minority.

Now, before closing, if I might take a moment more I would like to add to the number of instances of the middle way beyond those quite familiar and pointed in Mr. Justice Stewart's dissent. There are so many that I have just selected a few.

The constitution in my own State of California, and/or that of Connecticut, Louisiana, South Carolina, and many other States, has such words and references as this, "We, the people of [whatever State], grateful to Almighty God for our liberties"-affirming that He is the highest reality and recognizing His providence. The citation in the New York Surrogates Court reads: "The people of the State of New York, by the grace of God, being free and independent." Also some State constitutions begin with the phrase, “We the people, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God." One might say this is just ceremonial-I do not think it is. I think it is very serious and says a very important thing; not sectarian, but in reflecting the whole general Judean-Christian tradition which underlies so much. of the logic of our constitutional institutions.

The mottoes of the States are interesting. I will not read these, but generally God is put at the center of things. I wonder if you have ever looked carefully at the back of the dollar bill?

Here is one. [The witness exhibited a dollar bill.] On the left side is the back of the U.S. seal, which most people do not notice much. Sure enough, the central item is the eye of Almighty God looking over and judging the Nation which is represented by a pyramid,

affirming precisely the point affirmed in the New York prayer. Imagine, this is printed at public expense and, by the way, is increasingly less valuable.

Just one or two such examples. At Washington's inauguration, the service was designed by the House and Senate. Talk about the States writing prayers-they worked it all out. They had no church takeover. When they were ready to go they borrowed St. Paul's Chapel (connected with Trinity Parish, Manhattan) and asked their paid chaplain to take the service for which they had carefully worked out the plans.

The provision at the University of Virginia, proposed by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, I have already explained and perhaps this is enough to suggest the types of connection.

In short, as was pointed out by Mr. Justice Jackson in his opinion in the McCollum case, this wall of church-state separation that is more like the sepertine wall that Mr. Jefferson designed for the University of Virginia. But in any case, most of these interconnections in what I would call "the middle way" are not so much between a church or state but between the Nation and the general religious flavor of the culture of our society-that which underlies our institutions.

Therefore, I would urge this committee to report out to the Congress a constitutional amendment which will reaffirm the first amendment, and in such words which will ever preserve what has been a basic and abiding element of our American way of life.

In closing my statement, I would like to read these words from the Farewell Address of George Washington which I think sums up these relationships. He said:

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside in His holy protection; that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain brotherly affection and love for one another; for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly their brethren who have served in the field; and finally, that He will most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in those things, we can never be a happy Nation.

Senator HART. Bishop, thank you very much. Your testimony is the sort which will require all of us to read the record and to think hard.

There were many occasions when I am sure Senator Dirksen and Senator Keating and I would liked to have jumped in, but we were not sure where we would land.

I would like to tell you that I, too, believe in ultimate accountability, in eternal destiny and feel a very personal obligation to God. I am a denominationalist; I am a member of a sect and seek, as best I can, to obey its tenets.

The language you propose and Senator Robertson said seems to strike him as the most useful to achieve an end which he certainly espouses, is

the recognition as an established church of any denomination, sect, or organized religious association.

I think we all can follow you in your suggestion of what the Founding Fathers had in mind, the then current practice of an established church.

Let us go from that and many of the other suggestions and references that you made to some of the specific applications that have been raised as a result of this recent Court decision. With or without your proposed amendment, is it your view that a prayer which is the formula developed by a particular denomination can be said in a public school?

Bishop PIKE. I would think first the question would be more on the policy level. I would be inclined to say that it can be reasonably said that if a prayer of a given denomination-a sectarian prayer as such— were adopted in an official, continuing way (not in some pluralistic way, perhaps as was used in the Congress and so forth), that this would be an establishment as a state church of that particular body. Now something broader like the Lord's Prayer which is used in many, many schools now and which, by the way, is a very Jewish prayer in its concepts as well as Christian, presents nothing sectarian in the sense that you can call Christianity a sect. The policy again is another matter. I would not think it would be the establishment of a church any more than the reading from the Bible because none of us have a monopoly on the Bible and the Lord's Prayer. (It might be advantageous to my own church to have such a monopoly and copyright it.)

Senator HART. Bishop, that brings me to the point I was seeking to get to and I ask this for help and understanding.

In many regions of this country for so long that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary, they opened with the Lord's Prayer and reading from the Bible. As you so well know, not all of us say the Lord's Prayer the same way.

Bishop PIKE. No.

Senator HART. Would you still say that would be acceptable forgetting the policy?

Bishop PIKE. I would think so because the two different ways of saying the Lord's Prayer are not divided in terms of sect even within the same church. Sometimes the two ways are used by one or a group of churches. None of us claim it is any different, but only a difference of translation. For example, Episcopalians say, "Forever and ever" at the end. Everyone else says "Forever."

Senator HART. If you say it is a matter of translation. The form I say must have been developed by a translator who lost a whole sentence. It was not a question of how you translate that last passage. It just was not any last passage in my formula.

Bishop PIKE. "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory."

In my own tradition by the way, we do not add that ending (a doxology) when we are real solemn like burials, litanies, and so forth. We add it when we are feeling better about things. And that was the Jewish custom. It was sort of an extra alleluia for the more joyful occasions.

Now, for example, Roman Catholics never use the Doxology in public prayer yet their scholars are perfectly aware it was used in Jewish prayer at that time on certain types of occasions. The words are

not controversial. No Roman Catholic dissents as to the import of the words, "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory.'

The policy matters loom as to what you are going to do about the form of prayer like this. Maybe that is why the New York regents were wise to work up a very brief thing, in informal consultations with representatives of various religious groups. The prayer does not get into any of these issues, but simply acknowledges our dependence on Almighty God, ask God to bless our parents and our schools and our work. And it does not end with "through Jesus Christ, our Lord," and is not in any sense non-Jewish. It is Judeo-Christian in the broadest sense.

Senator HART. In this it is a matter of translation. It is my understanding that the translation, depending on which version you use, has significant basic consequences or some serious consequences. In any event you and I agree that not all Christian Bibles are the same. Bishop PIKE. No.

Senator HART. Then if you pick one you automatically reject the other.

Bishop PIKE. Note again, there is some policy in the selections made and I find in communities there is great care about this. For example in many, many communities when there is Bible reading, the Old

Testament is read.

This again is part of this middle way, a kind of muddling through shall we say, without being too logical. Yet, if the Old Testament is read, this is certainly a big part of the Christian heritage. It is part of the whole cultural heritage regardless of what one's affiliation may be and if care is taken to select passages which are incontrovertible, these things work out.

I have never heard of a single instance of abuse in this regard. There have never been outcrys, that is by the Roman Catholics when the word "repentance" is used instead of the word "penance." There is obviously a difference in translation. I personally see no great theological point involved, but it is true that the word "penance" is used in many places in the Douay version where the word "repentance" is used in King James.

I think here it is a question of care and discretion which I believe in every community school board and schoolteacher are quite aware of, just from a public relations point of view, if nothing else. They do not want fusses either.

May I say before I forget it that I think Senator Robertson has raised a most interesting point and if it has already been brought to this body, I will not dwell on it. I will not dwell on it anyway because of time. But the implications of this decision are such that one can ask about the functioning by clergy, without any State salaries, as officers of the State in performing marriages.

We act as officers of the State. Not only that; we are under penalties. In my State if I do not send back the report within 3 days I can be fined $50. In other words, I am unpaid by the State, but I will be fined by the State if I do not do the job as a State officer.

In fact, in the State of Maryland you can only be married by ministers of churches, recognized priests, pastors, or rabbis. These are the only State officers for this purpose who are available.

92395-63- -5

This is just one of the many examples. The fact is that it is too late in American history to start all over with a total secularization of everything, because we are well along in following this "middle way."

With all due respect to the intentions of the amendments already proposed, I believe if that line is to be followed then it would take a lot of study to enumerate all these things. The list would be longer than I would like to see in a constitution; but I think, at the least, chaplains for the Armed Forces should be included.

The purpose of my draft is to hope to avoid such a lengthy task and the fear of leaving something important out and also the burdening of the Constitution with too much wordage. I feel that strongly, because our California State constitution is almost an encyclopedia. It would appear that any notion about the tiniest point that has ever occurred to any State senator or assemblyman is in the State constitution. But the Federal Constitution has been kept pretty clean of that kind of encumbering detail, thus leaving either to legitimate national legislation or to legitimate local action, the filling out of these things in terms of our common life.

Senator HART. Just as an indication of the reason it will be the committee's job to read this transcript carefully, you made mention of the fact that in many State constitutions, God specifically was named; some suggestion as the Author of Life, and otherwise referred

to.

Parenthetically, I like that. But if you use that argument then you are faced with the proposition that our Constitution has a preamble that refrains from listing as purpose of government any power of religion, or obligation to promote religious ends and the Constitution itself has nothing about any prayer or invocation to God or even a mention of God.

Now, if you argue it one way you are stuck with it the other way. Bishop PIKE. I do not think so. I think the Declaration of Independence was presupposed in the thinking of our Founding Fathers. In other words, I do not think that in the short interval between the Declaration and the drafting of the Constitution they all changed their outlook. The same kinds of practices went on; the same kind of solemn invocation of God in Congress, and so forth.

I almost feel-and this is speculation-that virtually the same people having said this in the Declaration of Independence, I think they thought they had said it.

Senator HART. I wish they were here to visit with us.

Bishop PIKE. I do, too.

Senator HART. I would listen to them-as all of us-more attentively if they brought with them the experience up to the moment of their death, plus the experience of intervening generations because I think that is the way you have to read the Constitution. Bishop PIKE. You are quite right, sir, on that.

Senator HART. Is it your opinion as a lawyer that under the Supreme Court prayer decision, Engel v. Vitale, the Court would rule as unconstitutional a school board or a voluntary action by a teacher or a school superintendent in opening or at sometime during the course of the school day having a period of meditation during which one could pray to the God he sought and in the formula he wanted? Bishop PIKE. Theoretically, if you follow what is the more clean